A Republican effort to tighten voter identification requirements remains a strongly partisan issue at the New Hampshire State House – and the division was clear again on Tuesday.

The House Election Law Committee voted 11-9 that Senate Bill 3 ought to pass the full House when it goes to the floor, most likely on June 1. In the committee vote, all those who voted in favor of passage were Republicans and all who opposed passage were Democrats.

(The House Election Law Committee also reviewed other key voting- and campaign-related bills on Tuesday. See our reports below.)

Because of a Republican committee amendment that tightens some of the language contained in the bill passed by the state Senate earlier in the legislative session, if the bill passes the House, as expected, it will return to the Senate, which will consider the changes.

Ultimately, however, the bill is virtually certain to go to Gov. Chris Sununu, who has been in strong support of tightening identification requirements and is fully expected to sign it into law.

Republicans currently hold majorities of 221-170 in the House, with two Libertarians, and 14-9 in the Senate, with one open seat.

The Senate passed Senate Bill 3 in March, also strictly along party lines.

Under the latest version of the bill that was approved by the committee, someone who has been residing in a town or ward in New Hampshire for 30 or fewer days is viewed as a temporary visitor unless the person “has the intention of making the place in which the person resides his or her one place, more than any other, from which he or she engages in the domestic, social and civil activities” of the state.

That is the state's official definition of domicile, and the bill requires those people to show that they intend to make New Hampshire their domicile.

On-campus students who register to vote must show evidence of being a resident at that college. Others must show evidence of renting or leasing a residence for more than 30 days, or evidence of purchasing a home.

A driver’s license, motor vehicle registration, or a non-driving identification card are also viewed as evidence of being domiciled in the state, as is proof that a person’s child is enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school that serves the town or ward in which the prospective voter resides.

Federal or state tax forms or other government forms that show the domicile address can also be presented when someone registers to vote.

Renters who do not have their names on their leases can present written statements from someone whose name is on the rental agreement attesting to the residency of the prospective voter.

Under the bill, prospective voters who register 30 or fewer days before an election, including on Election Day, must use an “Election Day registration form,” which requires the applicant to provide evidence of a “verifiable action” showing an intent to make the address listed on the form his or her domicile.

Those people are required to present or mail evidence of being domiciled at the residence that they provide within 10 days after the election, or within 30 days after the election in towns with municipal offices that are open on a part-time basis.

In cases in which the voter does not present the required proof of domicile by the deadline, the supervisors of the checklist must attempt to make those verifications, either by examining public records or by requesting two or more municipal officers or their “agents,” or state election officials or their "agents," to visit the address “and verify that the individual was domiciled there on Election Day.”

Instead of visiting the home, local supervisors can refer the registrant’s information to the secretary of state’s office to investigate.

If the supervisors of the checklist are unable to verify a voter’s domicile, or in cases “where evidence exists of voter fraud,” they must report it to the secretary of state’s office and the attorney general’s office, which must investigate. The supervisors would remove the person’s name from the checklist if they receive confirmation from the secretary of state that the person is not domiciled at the address provided.

Under the bill, a person would be guilty of voter fraud if he or she failed to provide the necessary documents to prove domicile by the deadlines, or if she or she “purposely and knowingly” provides false information on the registration form.

Before the committee voted, several Democratic members said tightened requirements to prove a voter's domicile in New Hampshire for those who register within 30 days of an election are unnecessary and will suppress voting in the state, and at the very least create long lines at voting places. But Republicans said it is a straightforward means to ensure that those who vote in the state’s elections are truly eligible to vote.

Rep. William Pearson, D-Keene, argued that Republicans are pushing the bill as the result of “specious” claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire by President Donald Trump, Sununu and Secretary of State William Gardner, who also supports the bill.

He said it disenfranchises prospective voters by making voting lines longer.

Pearson said that at the public hearing, “I was eventually able to get our secretary of state to agree that long lines at the polls are an impediment to voting.”

Pearson said the House Finance Committee is recommending additional funding for the attorney general’s office to investigate voter fraud, which he said is a more effective means of addressing any potential voter fraud than the registration and identification process outlined in the bill.

“We have no evidence that this suspected fraudulent voting even exists, but we do have evidence that people who encounter long lines at the polls, or people who are required to bring extra paper that they are unaware of, their votes do not count when they don’t come back,” Pearson said. “And that to me is criminal.”

Rep. Michael Harrington, R-Strafford, said that despite claims to the contrary made in letters to the editor, in emails he has received and on social media, the bill contains “nothing to disenfranchise college students” or any voters.

“This treats them just like everybody else,” he said.

Rep. Marjorie Porter, D-Hillsborough, said, “I still feel this is a burden on voters to potentially have a huge fine placed upon them for legally voting but not having the right piece of paper. It gives me chills.”

“If passing this bill prevents even one from voting or causing one person to get a $4,000 or $5,000 fine because they failed to turn in a piece of paper at the right time, I think that’s a huge disservice to the voters.”

“I see no reason for this bill. It hasn’t been explained to me why we need it.”

Rep. Andrew White, D-Lebanon, said he was particularly concerned because, he said, “We at some point are going to require agents of the state government -- or if they choose, the city or town government – to do home visits. That is, to knock on the door and say, ‘Papers, please,’ for the crime of not forwarding to them a utility bill or a rent receipt.

“And if they don’t answer in the affirmative, if they don’t answer the door, they could face criminal penalties and immediate removal from the checklist. That is not the New Hampshire way. That is not the United States’ way and it is completely inappropriate.”

But Rep. Lisa Freeman, R-Manchester, said the fines included in the bill are no different than the fines contained in current state law for voter fraud.

She also said the bill would not require local officials to make home visits.

“This bill was not designed to address voter fraud,” Freeman said. “It was designed to tighten up the wording around ‘domicile’ and what exactly that means.”

“Students will not be disenfranchised. No one will be turned away at the polls. That’s the New Hampshire way.,

Committee chair Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, said the bill “is simply putting every registrant on the same footing in regard to the requirements” and is not creating "classes" of voters.

But Rep. David Cote, D-Nashua, said, “I have yet to figure out why it is necessary to do this. No proponent has given me a reason for any of this.”

He predicted that if passed, the bill will be found unconstitutional by the courts for placing “an impermissible and unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”

“The state of New Hampshire got along very well without any of this and without an adversarial voting registration process,” Cote said.

Other key election-related bills considered

Also Tuesday, the election law panel held a brief public hearing on legislation that would set up a committee to study and report on the rescheduling of future town elections in the event of weather-related or other significant occurrences that force postponement. Then bill is a response to the controversy that arose after 73 towns and many school districts did not hold their elections on March 14 due to a blizzard that hit most of the state.

The sponsor, Sen. Jeff Woodburn, D-Dalton, said that although issues surrounding the elections rescheduled from March 14 were addressed in other legislation, “There are long-term statutory issues that need to be considered and hopefully confusion removed."

Steve Fournier, town administrator of Newmarket, said, “It’s imperative that the House and Senate study this issue. There was great confusion that day on what we could and could not do. It is time that we clarify this 100 percent.”

He said there is always a possibility of “tornadoes, earthquakes, micro-bursts, bomb threats or, sad to say, someone with a gun – things we can’t prepare for” – to come up on town election days in the future.

The bill calls for a committee to study under what circumstances elections should be postponed in the future and to consider a procedure for dealing with those circumstances. The committee must report its findings by Nov. 1.

The election law committee also voted unanimously to recommend passage of legislation allowing cities and towns to conduct trial electronic poll book programs. The bill requires the secretary of state to file a report on the status of the trial programs no later than Nov. 1, 2021. If the bill passes the House, it would return to the Senate for consideration of an amendment added by the House committee.

The committee retained Senate Bill 33, which would require political advocacy groups to publicly report their campaign-related expenditures. Retaining the bill effectively kills it or the session. The committee will study and work on the bill and file a report and recommendation in January. The bill will be taken up by the House next year.

The Senate passed the bill in January.

Political advocacy groups do not specifically advocate for or against the election of a candidate, but they often use mailers pointing out that they support or oppose specific issues and then criticize or praise the candidate. They are not required to report their expenditures as candidate committees or traditional political action committee are required to do.

A Republican effort to tighten voter identification requirements remains a strongly partisan issue at the New Hampshire State House – and the division was clear again on Tuesday.

The House Election Law Committee voted 11-9 that Senate Bill 3 ought to pass the full House when it goes to the floor, most likely on June 1. In the committee vote, all those who voted in favor of passage were Republicans and all who opposed passage were Democrats.